By Ethan Casey

William Dalrymple is such an affable fellow, such an engaging narrator, and so generous in sharing the fruits of his erudition, that he gets away with speaking some hard truths. Last week, he ended a little Guardian item on “William Dalrymple’s top 10 books on Afghanistan” by bluntly recommending Cables from Kabul by the diplomat Sherard Cowper-Coles as “the best account I have read of how post-colonial colonialism works, exposing the mixture of arrogance, overconfidence and rudderless dithering that has defined the current occupation.”

The description is striking, given that Dalrymple’s recent career has been all about documenting and popularising awareness of significant episodes in the history of colonialism version 1.0 (British edition). Dalrymple recently told an interviewer that he sees his three history books, of which the just-published Return of a King: Shah Shuja and the First Battle for Afghanistan is perhaps, the most compelling, “very much as the East India Company trilogy”. So, when he refers to “post-colonial colonialism” in today’s Afghanistan, using words like “arrogance, overconfidence and rudderless dithering”, we do well to take note.

But the problem is that the people with the greatest understanding are not the people who wield power. All that is within Dalrymple’s power is to invest years of his own life, researching the first Afghan war of 1839-42, then to leverage everything he has learned by writing that — all over again — “despite all the billions of dollars handed out [since 2001], the training of an entire army of Afghan troops and the infinitely superior weaponry of the occupiers, the Afghan resistance succeeded again in first surrounding then propelling the hated Kafirs into a humiliating exit”. It’s hard to drive home the point any more explicitly than that. But no writer can force the makers of imperial policy to change their views or their ways.

And the problem is not only power but money. Those billions of dollars — where did they go? As anyone who follows international humanitarianism knows, many of the dollars went straight back to the countries they came from. This is the nature of postcolonial colonialism. Kabul today is, Dalrymple told Stuart Jeffries in The Guardian, “almost like a French finishing school — lovely-looking French girls working for NGOs and handsome-looking French archaeologists, digging away”. Much of the damage the vaunted “international community” does in vulnerable countries like Afghanistan is in the sheer scale of the economic impact of their big institutions: exorbitant rents, financial and moral corruption, and so forth.

I haven’t seen this in action in Afghanistan as Dalrymple has, but I saw it in Cambodia in the 1990s, and I’ve been seeing it in Haiti for more than 30 years, where it’s been turbocharged since the January 2010 earthquake. “Every one of those 10,000 NGOs are here to live their own dream,” the Dutch journalist Linda Polman told the makers of the remarkable documentary film Haiti: Where Did the Money Go? “People are very poor, but they’re not stupid. They know that the money was raised from their suffering and their poverty, and it’s not being spent on them.”

As a Haitian proverb puts it, perhaps, explaining the motivation behind much, if not most, terrorism: the big guy does what he wants; the little guy does what he can. The elephant in the Afghan room today is that its post-colonial colonial occupation enjoys no credibility with the local population. Insisting otherwise or whistling in the dark changes nothing. The US has long leaned on the plausible deniability of not being overtly an imperial power; but that excuse wore thin decades ago in Vietnam.

A British writer like Dalrymple can approach the issues from a helpfully indirect angle because his country is further in time from the apogee of its imperial arrogance. For an American writer like me, the challenge is different. But for anyone writing in English, the question is: how do we get the American establishment and public to listen?

Published in The Express Tribune, April 3rd, 2013.

Iraq War paraplegic Thomas Young, the focal point of the 2008 documentary Body of War, has decided to commit suicide by stopping eating and has written a letter to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who as President and Vice President took the country to war with Iraq, blaming them for having fought a war which was militarily and economically a failure. The letter also blames them for the many deaths and injuries that took place there. While the US invasion of Iraq is over, its adventure in Afghanistan is not. It should be noted that the supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction and alleged Al-Qaeda links in Iraq have been proved false.

That the war in Afghanistan has harmed the USA more than it has benefited it, can be seen from the fact that it has cost the USA heavily in both lives and money, but this has not made US citizens safer. Like the Iraq war, the USA has lost the war in Afghanistan, having also failed there to achieve its objectives. Even though the USA brought full pressure to bear on Afghanistan, including its ravaging of Pakistan’s tribal areas and also of both its military and its economy, it has failed to make the proud Afghan people accept either its occupation, or the regime it has imposed.

What has become clear to American policymakers, even though Bush’s successor, President Obama, has begun his second term, that the USA has been beaten in Iraq, is now being brought into the open by such efforts as that of Mr Young. It should also inform policymakers in Pakistan. Pakistani citizens keep paying greater cost in blood than any other country in the world, while the USA builds up India in Afghanistan, even though it has no legitimate interest there, as well as the rest of the region, even though it will not address its problems with its neighbours, most notably the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...ons/editorials

Elimination of opium economy is a long a complex challenge in Afghanistan. The Khaama Press report on continued opium production in Afghanistan and West’s investment underhand is “the ugly truth behind the international opium policy”. Now that democratic government is functioning in Kabul, world has opened its eyes towards solving the narcotic drugs problem, more than 100,000 international forces are present in Afghanistan…, no effective action has been taken so far to stop the opium production and trade. In the past two decades, Afghanistan had provided more than 90% of world’s opium. the total illicit narcotic drug trade is equal to one third of the country’s GDP, benefiting millions of Afghan citizens directly or indirectly. Statistics say Afghanistan has experienced one of the highest rates of drug fabrication in the past year. Different groups, including government-military officials, the rural poor, large and small businesses, local warlords and international criminal syndicates are among its beneficiaries. Elimination of the opium economy will be a long and complex process.

Because of corruption by Kabul officials, the Afghan opium cultivators prefer to ask Taliban to protect their opium crops. The UN says only about 10% of total opium profits go to farmers and 20% to insurgents. The rest of the income is for traffickers, police, warlords and government officials. These people abuse their position in government to support the arrest and prosecution of the main traffickers and smugglers. “The latest example of involvement of high-ranking members of governments in the narcotic drug trade goes back to 2010. At that time, several Afghan Air Force personnel claimed that some of the Army Air Force staffs took advantage of aircrafts at night and by the assistance of the Department of Defense they were committing narcotic drug and weapon trading. However, this investigation was confronted with the disruptions of senior officials of the Ministry of Defense and the Presidency.”

Now it is feared that the risk of widespread drug cultivation will be high in the coming years. Thus Afghanistan is unable to solve this global problem alone. “The international community and countries on the drug transit route should join hands together to solve this problem that is greater than the threat of terrorism,” as the study suggests. It adds that the ugly truth is that the Afghan opium boom and a flood of cheap heroin to Europe and other rich countries reveals that powerful states prefer to allow some farmers to cultivate opium and only support them against international terrorism.

http://www.pkarticleshub.com/2013/03...licy%E2%80%99/

Foreign forces in Afghanistan

Most international troops are scheduled to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

There are still questions over how many foreign soldiers will remain after the 2014 deadline, with an acceptance that some special forces will stay to conduct "counter-terror operations" and others to support and train Afghan forces.

Nato is in the process of handing over security control - and some strategically important areas have already been transferred to Afghan forces.

How many Nato troops are there?

In February there were 1just over 100,000 Nato troops serving in Afghanistan from 50 contributing nations, the International Security and Assistance Force (Isaf) said.

Of these the bulk - about 66,000 - are US troops.

The number of US forces in Afghanistan peaked at about 101,000 in 2011, taking full Nato force numbers to about 140,000. But an extra 33,000 American soldiers sent as part of the "surge" have now been withdrawn and Washington plans to carry on winding down combat operations during 2013.

About half the current remaining number of troops - 34,000 - will return to the US by early 2014.

Leaders of nations contributing forces in Afghanistan have been talking about withdrawal for some time. Both France and Canada ended their combat missions early, although they have yet to bring all their troops home.

Britain, the second largest contributor to Nato's Afghanistan operation, has about 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, and 4,000 more will be brought home by summer 2013, with the remainder leaving by the end of 2014.


Australia has said most of its troops most will be home by the end of 2013 and that it will close its Tarin Kot base in Uruzgan province by the end of the year. Other contributing countries include Germany, Italy, Australia, Poland and Turkey.

How successful has the Isaf operation been?

That depends.

One stated goal has been to prevent Afghanistan from being a "safe haven" from which al-Qaeda might plan attacks in other countries.

Most analysts agree that, by that yardstick, the Nato operation has in part been successful. Al-Qaeda's strength in the country has been reduced, although it still has a presence in the country.

But if improving security for the average Afghan is the criterion by which success is measured, the answer is very different. Civilian casualties have risen steeply every year for the past five years - although they fell in the first half of 2012. It remains to be seen if that trend is sustained.


Coalition forces have almost complete control of the air
After more than a decade of war, the Taliban are a long way from being defeated and have been growing in strength. Many of Nato's territorial gains are by no means irreversible and the militants still have the capacity to launch devastating surprise attacks such as the September 2012 attack on Camp Bastion.

If the troop surge of 2010 was successful in stopping the Taliban's momentum in the south, it did not succeed in defeating the militants, especially in the north and centre where the alliance is thinner on the ground.

The pressure on Nato leaders to pull troops out has also been exacerbated by a series of "green-on-blue" attacks in which members of the Afghan security forces have turned their arms on coalition troops. At least 60 Nato personnel were killed in such attacks in 2012.

Insurgents have exacted a much heavier toll - since 2001 more than 3,000 coalition troops have been killed in Afghanistan.

Which areas are being handed to Afghan control?

The first province to be handed over was Bamiyan in the summer of 2011.

Key parts of the Taliban heartland in Helmand and Kandahar provinces have been handed over the Afghan National Army (ANA).

After a long absence Afghan army patrols have since returned to Kandahar city, regarded as the birthplace of the Taliban.

Concerns remain, however, about the strength of the Taliban and high levels of corruption and incompetence among the Afghan army and police.

In September 2012 the US military handed control of the controversial Bagram jail - housing more than 3,000 Taliban fighters and terrorism suspects - to the Afghan authorities.

How ready are Afghan forces?

A cornerstone of Nato strategy has been to boost the size and effectiveness of Afghan security forces ahead of the Nato pullout. The ANA currently has about 185,000 trained members.


Afghan soldiers support coalition operations on a daily basis
There are similar numbers of Afghan police, who are less well trained.

Whether army and police numbers are scaled back after 2014 when Western financial support shrinks has still to be decided.

The government says the response of the Afghan security forces to Taliban attacks in Kabul in April 2012 and in September 2011 clearly show how much more professional it has become.

But many observers question how it would fare against the Taliban without help from Nato.

How strong are the Taliban?

The Taliban and their allies have returned with a vengeance after their rout in December 2001.


The withdrawal plan marks the beginning of the end of a troop-intensive approach to the insurgency
The militants are thought to be only about 20,000 strong.

But it has become increasingly clear to Nato that it cannot win militarily against the insurgents, and many areas of the country are under their de facto control.

The militants have been taking part in renewed peace efforts and there was a flurry of diplomatic activity at the end of 2012, raising hopes of a possible settlement.

Pakistan, Afghanistan's powerful neighbour, also released a number of Taliban prisoners, who observers say it had been holding as bargaining chips in the "Afghan endgame".

Do Afghans support the foreign presence?

Most Afghans remain optimistic about the state of their country, repeated polls commissioned by the BBC, ABC News and German broadcaster ARD have shown.

But they have also become increasingly angry at civilians being killed by foreign forces, in night raids, aerial bombardments and other attacks. Nato's failure to do better on this score is seen as a key factor in why support for its mission has fallen.

Relations between President Karzai and the US in particular have been strained by the killing of 15 Afghan civilians by an American soldier in March 2012, violent protests over the inadvertent burning of copies of the Koran at a US airbase in February 2012 and the emergence of a video in January of the same year which appeared to show US troops urinating on Taliban bodies.

However, many Afghans also say they fear the Taliban may return once foreign troops pull out.

So what will Afghanistan look like after 2014?

The BBC's Quentin Sommerville in Kabul say that it is likely to remain desperately poor, with an economy still on the brink and corruption still widespread. The Taliban will remain undefeated, our correspondent says, even if it is unlikely that they will pose a "major" threat to the government - at least in terms of taking Kabul.

The east will likely remain as unruly as it always has been, while some sort of a compromise may well be reached with the insurgents in Helmand and Kandahar provinces.

http://www.bbc.com/news/

Afghanistan, a place where all the concepts of modern war, is lost in the haze and fog of perpetual uncertainty. Military strategists and historians are confused, should they call it a phony war, just war or a mere long war. No explanation can satiate the mongrel to devour upon more human, a cadaverous melodrama.

Afghanistan was never a country in classical sense; it remained a maze of semi autonomous territories with Kabul as the pageant capital. The present attacks of Green on Blue are not a surprise, the reappearance of opium industry with a vengeance is not news anymore and the increase in suicide attacks is fairly a routine which is normally called as surge.

NATO Special Forces have started leaving Wardak after allegations of human right violations; the US defense secretary Chuck Hagel has taken strong exceptions to the anti US comments of Mr Karazai, so the perennial confusion is increasing with every passing day. Allied troops move out and insecurity will move in, or the tribal calm will spread with diminishing responses from the real players, the people, war lords, drug barons and the Taliban.

How then this puzzle called as Afghanistan be solved, you stoke the cards in wrong direction and the picture is lost, you take two wrong moves and there you are out of the cart, unfortunately the Americans did both.

From troubled allies to unreliable partners the story becomes murkier with each passing day.

What's up? Three things decide the winner of any modern war, Technique, Technology and the Paradigmatic Metaphor of protagonists, from the very start the allied troops had an edge on technology but the Taliban were way ahead in technique and the metaphor. T o alter the balance one has to be very good in the application of knowledge in local cultural and customs.

French revolution and present day collapse (rather the remaking) of Russia are indicative that the suppression of poor is not the major cause of such things; it is the reforms at belated time which trigger the revolutions which are all most always initially leader less till the subsequent emergence of a leader at some stage.

So is Afghanistan a sort of revenge of geography from the lower steppe on one hand and the Mackinder's heart land(Central Asia) on the other or it is a mere lack of killer applications which west applied to seek their present day glory? Two weapons, the suicide killings and the potassium and nitrate based IEDs are like inventing the gun powder again.

The provinces along Pakistani border are being used as launching pads. Two syndromes are evident, on this side the momentous Malala syndrome and the other side of border is the Fazallullah syndrome. The Afghan ramifications are well neigh visible in the sectarian killings of Hazara tribe. Tribal war is brought home.

It could not be only sectarianism by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, it has its roots in bamiyan where Hazara tribe was mass murdered and as a consequence they joined Afghan national army in droves to take revenge from Taliban.

Another recruiting slogan for Afghan army was the enmity of Pakistan, courtesy the Indian trainers. Wrong slogans fetch wrong crowd at wrong place, result chaos and more chaos. On the other hand the demographic signs of the Afghan society are improving. Kabul is now an expanding city.
The youth bulge is increasing and after another five years over 65% population of Afghanistan will be under twenty.

Out of this the girls will be in overwhelming numbers, the likely aspirants of modern education. The construction activity in major cities is at its peak.
After 10 years Afghanistan will likely be a different country due to emerging social indicators, till then the neighbors, particularly Pakistan which has to bear the brunt.

A paradox is created, Kashmir on the east and festering Afghanistan on west has left the strategists directionless.

The raison detre of the war was Al-Qaeda, but now Al-Qaeda being decapitated is almost gone.

So why did US come and if it has gyrated the process to leave Afghanistan then what was it all about? The answer to this million dollar question is to create a controlled chaos through the application of famous chaos theory.
The Nagharhar, Nooristan and Kunar provinces of Afghanistan figures out as the launching pad to perpetrate same chaos in Pakistan. Fazallulah is spear heading this move.

He is provided with a sanctuary, a safe heaven and the logistic support to stoke an insurgency in Pakistan. Same way Sufi Fakir who was arrested in Afghanistan and is involved in many terrorist attacks in Pakistan is not handed over despite repeated requests.

Beware, George Friedman in his book The Next Hundred Years has clearly maintained that the objective in Iraq was to create chaos, it was never to win territory.

Pakistan is not Iraq or Afghanistan, therefore the ground realities are different but someone, somewhere is trying to apply different models, and the cultural endowment is more of a plus then a differential at Durand line.

It is only a matter of time when all the players will realize that playing jujitsu can be fine with each other but playing games is too dangerous on such a wild territory. Silver lining, Pakistan is coming to grips with its wild, Wild West and the world has to give it a little time to breathe.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/

April 06, 2013 7


As a good omen of greater regional cooperation in the future, the diplomats of China, Pakistan and Russia who met in Beijing on Wednesday decided to join hands in bringing about peace and stability in Afghanistan, especially as the process of US withdrawal comes to a close end-2014. It should be no surprise to see that the discussion on regional situation led them to focus on Afghanistan, the principal hotspot around though they also exchanged views on, in particular, terrorism in general. Later, the Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a statement in which it was stated that they agreed that regional security and stability cannot be divorced from the developing scenario in Afghanistan. And as its neighbours they could not remain indifferent and greater understanding and the need for greater coordination were the result. In this context they also agreed to support the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which have other regional countries as its members, to play a bigger role in Afghanistan.

A regional solution based on the Afghans’ own wishes and the spirit of reconciliation among the rival ethnic communities in the country appears to be the only way out of the current mess. It can bring peace to Afghanistan, Pakistan as well as the region. However, it must be kept in mind that withdrawal of Nato forces does not, in any way, paves the way for Russia to have a foothold in the country.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...ons/editorials

Afghanistan is passing through unfortunate times. Three streams of fragile transition are in progress; all in an indecent haste to meet the 2014 timeline. These are in security, political and economic domains. Though political transition holds the key to success; it is the patchiest of all. Transfer of power to President Karzai’s successor having enough charisma and credibility to hold the country together will determine the fate of remaining two transitions. Most of the stakeholders related to these transitions are fixated to their oft stated positions; in the military jargon they are in a state of “running on the spot”. Ongoing tension between Pakistan and Afghanistan is also an umpteenth replay of a beaten track.

Afghanistan has expressed grave concern at what it called “Pakistani military’s unilateral construction and physical reinforcement activities” along the border. Afghan officials have also claimed that Pakistani forces fired nearly 50 rockets into Kunar on March 25 and 26.

In return, the Afghan foreign ministry cancelled a planned trip to Pakistan by Afghan army officers for joint exercises. Pakistan has described the Afghan government’s outburst as an ‘overreaction’ to a local issue.

Pakistan’s foreign ministry clarified that no rocket or artillery shells have been fired in the recent days. Pakistani troops merely returned small arms fire at the specific directions from where the militants fired at the Pakistani border posts.

Pakistan’s Army Chief General Ashfaq Kayani has once again reiterated Pakistan’s stance and desire for peaceful, stable and united Afghanistan, and the need for a successful “Afghan owned and Afghan led peace process.” His remarks came during his recent meeting with General Joseph F Dunford, the NATO/ISAF commander in Afghanistan. General Kayani urged General Dunford, to ‘help Pakistan check cross-border attacks launched from inside Afghanistan.’

To facilitate a solution to Afghan conflict, Pakistan is playing an active role at regional level as well. On April 03, Pakistan participated in trilateral China, Russia and Pakistan dialogue on Afghanistan in Beijing.

Trio agreed to support the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in playing a greater role on the Afghanistan issue.

A day earlier, China and Pakistan also held bilateral consultation on Afghanistan.

The two sides agreed that the international community should create favourable conditions for reconciliation, respecting the history, cultural traditions, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Afghanistan.

As regards political transition, Afghan government has been striving hard to get the Taliban to the negotiating table. During his recent visit to Kabul, Secretary of State John Kerry repeated a call for the Taliban to enter into talks and a wider political process.

He indeed issued a veiled threat if Taliban did not oblige, by saying that President Barack Obama is yet to say how many US troops will remain in the country after 2014.

Any future peace talks still face numerous hurdles before they could begin, including confusion over who would represent the Taliban and Karzai’s insistence that his appointees be at the centre of negotiations. Karzai has repeatedly stressed the need to bring Pakistan into such a negotiation process.

Kabul and Doha have come to an agreement on setting up an office for the Taliban in Doha during President Karzai’s recent visit to Qatar.

“One of the details of this agreement was that the opposition should use this office only for the peace talks and not any other political purpose,” said HPC member Maulvi Shafiullah Noorestani. “Another part of the agreement is that those Taliban members who are ready for the peace talks should be granted immunity, and any suspension should be removed… the office will be opened by the High Peace Council,” he said.

The plan has its critics who doubt whether Doha office would make any difference.

National Coalition leader Abdullah Abdullah said he did not believe anything was really achieved by Karzai’s visit to Qatar. Moreover, Taliban refuse to have direct contact with Karzai, saying that he is a puppet of the United States. “The opening of the Taliban office in Qatar is not related to Karzai, it is a matter between the Taliban and the Qatar government,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid stated. Pakistan has all along expressed its support for a Taliban’s political office in Doha and has proposed that Taliban should be encouraged to launch their political platforms.

The United Nations has welcomed Karzai’s visit to Qatar, and called upon Taliban to come to the negotiating table.

On the economic front Karzai met with Qatari investors and encouraged them to invest in the country: “The future of Afghanistan is guaranteed because our relations have expanded with America and other countries such as China, India and Russia…Afghanistan has good opportunities and resources that we can share with you.”

In the context of drawdown, the US special operations forces have handed over their base in Wardak to Afghan Special Forces. “As we pledged, our forces have transitioned Nirkh district to Afghan national security forces and they have now assumed full responsibility for security in this key district,” General Dunford, said. “The rest of Wardak will continue to transition over time as Afghan forces continue to grow in capability and capacity,” he added. A major operation to airlift thousands of tones of military equipment from Afghanistan has begun. The British troops’ presence will be almost halved by the end of this year, from 8000 to 5,200. At Camp Bastion, the main operating base in Helmand which had grown to the size of a town, there are now expanses of dust where canvas villages once stood.

Lieutenant General Nick Carter, deputy chief of NATO/ISAF said: “the transition to Afghan control is going well…Afghan confidence is our centre of gravity at every level. If the Afghans can look back over the summer and say 'we managed that' with only limited help from ISAF, then I think that will give them a really good platform for managing the political transition that has to follow in 2014”.

It is a big if! he added. Of the 26 ANSF brigades, only five have reached a standard of fully independent.

The UK's acting ambassador in Kabul, Nic Hailey, said, "We all talk about 2014 as the flagship date but actually by end of 2013 we will know quite a lot about what 2014 will look like. We will know how the ANSF has coped through a fighting season in which they are in the lead", he added.

No Taliban leader worth his salt is likely to agree to open ended stay of foreign military contingent in Afghanistan, and that too with blanket immunity. Taliban are weighing their options, they would prefer not to disrupt the process, and negotiate with the new president once foreign forces have left.
In all probability, there would be residual insurgency in post 2014 time frame and large area of Afghanistan will continue to be outside ANSF control for an indefinite timeframe.

(Writer is Consultant, Policy & Strategic Response, IPRI)

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/

April 08, 2013
Iqbal Khan

Afghanistan is passing through unfortunate times. Three streams of fragile transition are in progress; all in indecent haste to meet the 2014 timeline. These are in security, political and economic domains. Though political transition holds the key to success, it is the patchiest of all. The transfer of power to President Hamid Karzai’s successor having enough charisma and credibility to hold the country together will determine the fate of the remaining two transitions. Most of the stakeholders related to these transitions are fixated to their oft-stated positions; in military jargon, they are in a state of “running on the spot.” The ongoing tension between Pakistan and Afghanistan is also an umpteenth replay of a beaten track.

Afghanistan has expressed grave concern at what it called “Pakistani military’s unilateral construction and physical reinforcement activities” along the border. The Afghan officials have also claimed that the Pakistani forces fired nearly 50 rockets into the province of Kunar on March 25 and 26. In return, the Afghan Foreign Ministry cancelled a planned trip to Pakistan by the Afghan army for joint exercises.

Pakistan has described Kabul’s outburst as an “over-reaction” to a local issue. Its Foreign Ministry clarified that no rocket or artillery shells have been fired in the recent days. Pakistan’s troops merely returned small arms fire at specific directions from where the militants fired at Pakistani border posts.

The Army Chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, has once again reiterated Pakistan’s stance and desire for a peaceful, stable and united Afghanistan, and the need for a successful “Afghan-owned and Afghan-led peace process”. His remarks came during a recent meeting he had with General Joseph F. Dunford, the Nato/Isaf Commander in Afghanistan. General Kayani urged General Dunford to “help Pakistan check cross-border attacks launched from inside Afghanistan”.

To facilitate solution to the Afghan conflict, Pakistan is playing an active role at the regional level as well. On April 3, Pakistan participated in the trilateral China, Russia and Pakistan dialogue on Afghanistan in Beijing. The trio agreed to support the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in playing a greater role on the Afghanistan issue. A day earlier, China and Pakistan too held bilateral consultation on the war-torn country. The two sides agreed that the international community should create favourable conditions for reconciliation, respecting its history, cultural traditions, sovereignty and territorial integrity.
As regards political transition, the Afghan government has been striving hard to get the Taliban to the negotiating table. During his recent visit to Kabul, Secretary of State John Kerry repeated “the US call for the Taliban to enter into talks and a wider political process”. He also issued a veiled threat if they did not oblige by saying that “President Barack Obama is yet to say how many US troops will remain in the country after 2014.”

Any future peace talks still face numerous hurdles before they could begin, including confusion over who would represent the Taliban and Karzai’s insistence that his appointees be at the centre of the negotiations. He has also repeatedly stressed the need to bring Pakistan into such a negotiation process.

Kabul and Doha have come to an agreement on the political office for the Taliban in Qatar after President Karzai’s visit there. “One of the details of this agreement was that the opposition should use this office only for peace talks and not any other political purpose,” said Afghanistan’s High Peace Council member Maulvi Shafiullah Noorestani. “Another part of the agreement is that those Taliban members, who are ready for the peace talks, should be granted immunity and any suspension should be removed…....the office will be opened by the High Peace Council,” he added. However, analysts doubt whether the Doha office would make any difference. National Coalition leader Abdullah Abdullah said that he did not believe anything was really achieved by Karzai’s visit to Qatar.

Moreover, the Taliban refused to have direct contact with him. “The opening of the Taliban office in Qatar is not related to Karzai; it is a matter between the Taliban and the Qatar government,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid stated. Pakistan has all along expressed its support for the establishment of a Taliban political office in Doha and has proposed that they should be encouraged to launch their political platforms. The UN has welcomed Karzai’s visit to Qatar and called upon the Taliban to come to the negotiating table.
On the economic front, President Karzai met with Qatari investors and encouraged them to invest in the country. He maintained: “The future of Afghanistan is guaranteed because our relations have expanded with America and other countries such as China, India and Russia…….Afghanistan has good opportunities and resources that we can share with you.”

In the context of drawdown, the US Special Operations Forces have handed over their base in Wardak to the Afghan Special Forces. “As we pledged, our forces have transitioned Nirkh district to the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and they have now assumed full responsibility for security in this key district,” said General Dunford. “The rest of Wardak will continue to transition over time as the Afghan forces continue to grow in capability and capacity,” he added.

Against this backdrop, a major operation to airlift thousands of tonnes of military equipment from Afghanistan has begun. The British troops’ presence will be almost halved by the end of this year - from 8,000 to 5,200. At Camp Bastion, the main operating base in Helmand that had grown to the size of a town, there are now expanses of dust where canvas villages once stood.

Lieutenant General Nick Carter, Deputy Chief of Nato/Isaf, said: “The transition to Afghan control is going well.......Afghan confidence is our centre of gravity at every level. If the Afghans can look back over the summer and say 'we managed that' with only limited help from the Isaf, then I think that will give them a really good platform for managing the political transition that has to follow in 2014.” However, of the 26 ANSF brigades, only five have reached the standard of being fully independent.

In addition, the UK's acting Ambassador in Kabul, Nic Hailey, said: "We all talk about 2014 as the flagship date. But actually by end of 2013, we will know quite a lot about what 2014 will look like. We will know how the ANSF has coped through a fighting season in which they are in the lead."

As a final word, not even one of the Taliban leaders worth his salt is likely to agree to an open-ended stay of the foreign troops in Afghanistan and, that too, with blanket immunity. They are weighing their options and would prefer not to disrupt the process. They would rather negotiate with the new President in Kabul once the occupation forces have left. In all probability, there would be residual insurgency in the post-2014 timeframe and the large area of Afghanistan will continue to be outside the ANSF control for an indefinite period of time.

n The writer is an academic and a freelance columnist. Email: wonderous101@gmail.com Twitter: @wonderous101

The Nation

Washington and Kabul: time to partner for peace

David Cortright

At a press conference in Kabul on 11 March 2013, Afghan President Hamid Karzai charged that the United States was working with the Taliban to undermine his government and keep Afghanistan unstable in order to justify maintaining troops in the country. The accusation angered Washington and was promptly dismissed. Yet Afghan officials and civil society leaders are increasingly frustrated by US actions that harm civilians and undermine Afghan sovereignty.

Despite the difficulties, Washington and Kabul could rebuild their frayed relationship by shifting from the strategy of war to the pursuit of peace and lasting stability in Afghanistan.

It is important to remember that the two governments share many common interests that define their partnership. In a joint statement released on 11 January 2013, US President Barack Obama and President Karzai re-affirmed their shared commitments to advancing peace, strengthening Afghanistan’s democratic institutions and creating a secure, stable country able to develop economically and socially.

Achieving these shared interests is possible but will require different thinking around - and less resistance to - a peace settlement.

Presidents Obama and Karzai have already called for a political solution to the war. Both leaders endorsed the goal of negotiated peace settlement, but neither displayed much enthusiasm or sense of strategic direction reaching out to insurgents. The Taliban and other insurgent groups also favoured peace talks initially, but then walked away from the process demanding that the United States fulfil earlier promises to release Taliban detainees from Guantanamo.

A possible model for a peace settlement comes at the recommendation of International Crisis Group and the RAND Corporation. In reports published by these organisations in 2011 and 2012, both recommended the creation of a high-level UN-led mediation team that is acceptable to all parties to facilitate a comprehensive peace process between them. The UN is perhaps the only organisation able to garner the political clout needed to successfully achieve a peace settlement. While those reports initially gave an early 2013 deadline for implementing these efforts, it’s not too late.

A comprehensive peace process could start with confidence-building measures geared at different groups and culminate in a negotiated political settlement that includes all relevant stakeholders in the country, including ethnic minorities and civil society in Afghanistan.

These latter groups would need to be present from the start to create broader buy-in for a settlement, raising prospects for its success. Washington and Kabul might begin working with the UN to identify a mediation team that is mutually acceptable to both and also able to engage all major stakeholders.
If a peace agreement is reached, it would likely need the support of third party peacekeeping forces. Peacekeeping is different from peacebuilding in that a neutral third party - usually authorised by the UN - goes into the country to create conditions for peace, including monitoring the withdrawal of combatants from conflict zones, monitoring elections and delivering reconstruction aid. Evidence from other peace settlements, such as Cambodia and Liberia, indicates that the presence of third party peacekeepers greatly increases the prospects for sustainable peace.

A peacekeeping force might be led by Muslim-led troops as suggested by Taliban leaders. A Muslim-led peacekeeping force is likely to have more success given hostility toward Western powers resulting from Afghanistan’s recent history. Indonesian officials I have interviewed about this idea said that Jakarta might be willing to play a role, but only if the force was under UN authority and had the consent of all Afghan parties.

By supporting UN-led negotiations for a comprehensive settlement and working with Indonesia and other Muslim-majority nations to create an interim peacekeeping force, Washington and Kabul could build a more stable, lasting partnership. Both countries would benefit. The United States could withdraw its troops without jeopardising security in the region, and Afghanistan would gain greater sovereignty and hope for a more peaceful future.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/

The realisation is fast dawning upon the US allies fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan that despite having spent a huge amount of money in pursuit of the war, peace in Afghanistan would not come about. There is no denying that lasting peace could not be achieved at the point of a gun. Successive US commanders and NATO officials have publicly accepted that the war in Afghanistan could never be won. As a result, the allies, convinced that peace has to be negotiated with the Taliban who are a major stakeholder, have been pulling out their troops for quite some time past. Some of them have also asserted that reconciliation could not be realised without involving Pakistan. Some British members of parliament have expressed the view that an Afghan-led peace deal with the Taliban is needed to hold Afghanistan back from sliding into civil war. The defence select committee said the UK had a responsibility to "make Afghanistan work" after 2014. Defence Secretary Philip Hammond told the BBC that nobody could say "with certainty what the future for Afghanistan" would be.

The situation demands that Pakistan launches a massive diplomatic effort to protect its interest in the post pullout period. It is in our interest that people of Afghanistan get an opportunity to decide their future. Therefore, the countries in the region must join hands to pave the way for a durable peace to take place in this war-devastated land.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...inions/columns